Do you believe in god? the gods discussion thread

[Krispin]

In duality there are many ways to create doubts about the actuality of history, science, religion, etc. We can only go on faith in this type of dualistic environment on subjects like God. When deductibility is applied and all duality is eliminated, there is only 1. You, like every other creature, are part of the one. This 'one', that each of us is a part of, is the creator. This tends to take a human form through our dualistic religions but GOD, the 'One' the Creator, 'that which was before time' is of the same form and function of energy for that is what this is. With this said, the energy that created all of this, and all of us, must follow the Law of Energy Conservation, essentially making it timeless and eternal much like what many call GOD. Following the Mass/Energy Equation, energy and mass are interchangeable, as mass can become energy and energy can become mass. This makes all of mass, the whole of energy. When viewed from this perspective it is easy to see that the creator is the simplest form of energy, pure light, and that energy, GOD, created all of creation. We learn that this creation came from the most dense bit of matter but that creation had to have come from the smallest vibration of energy before what science sees as the BigBang. Once this happened, energy becoming matter, creation ensued and dualistic separation eventually split MAN from GOD.

Thanks to Young's work in particle/wave function we know that experiments are bias to the consciousness of the viewer creating big questions around everything we have ever learned up to this point. Nothing is for sure and everything is possible. Consciousness is becoming more and more accepted as the single decision maker in anything and everything that happens.

Who is right? All are right. Who is God? I am God, just like you, because we are a part of that which created us GOD/Energy/Light. How can you ever be sure that all of this, what you see, what you believe is real, all that you can touch, all of history as you have learned it, every book, every bit of knowledge, all that you have ever experienced through ANY of your senses has only happened since you became "CONSCIOUS" of it. ALL of it exists only for you, only in your mind, each and every person, thing, place, time, it is all a mental flicker ONLY for you...You are the light, you are the energy, you are that which you see as God. Why not? It makes more sense than the bullshit science and religion are forcing into every opening in your senses input. When you approach life under the premiss that you MIGHT be God, you live a little bit better...you are a little bit kinder....you give a little bit deeper...you essentially start to realize that "treat your brother like yourself" brings a deeper more realistic perspective. You see all of creation as God, as it exists in YOU...If you are the creator, JUST IN CASE...Create Responsibly.

Just because science has not fully explained the cause of the Big Bang or even completely explained/proven the Big Bang itself does not mean that “God” or any other supernatural, supreme force is automatically confirmed. Also, subjectivity of sense datum complicates arguments asserting God as universal origin and universal supreme because of objective absence. Lastly, if I was God, I would hold myself as supreme in consciousness and ability, but I do not hold myself as such because I comprehend ideas and principles beyond myself and I comprehend abilities and motivations foreign to me (if I was God, no idea or motivation would be foreign to me and I would not comprehend anything greater/ more supreme than my own being).

 

[Krispin]

Its ok if you don't want to believe. Who would you like confirmation from?

BxB

I know it's okay if I don't want to believe but it's not okay if you believe in something that cannot stand whatsoever without faith or misguided passion. Almost anyone can create a belief system and turn it into a religion, but that does not make it correct or right or true. Faith can be placed in anything: a rock, a toy, a symbol, a book, etc., but confirmation (i.e., validity) of the object of faith does not resolve until a compelling and demonstrable reason is shown to as defense against the counterarguments.

 

[|<-9x7->|]

I agree with Douglas Adams. People went ballistic and start 'believing' hysterically because they'd not seen anything like Jesus in their own lifetime, who realistically, was someone who got nailed to a tree for suggesting that people should just get along and try to be nice to one another.

I don't believe in anything else the bible says or does; it was first written 500 years after the events contained in the new testament supposedly took place. Given longevity expectations then, thats 10 generations of chinese whispers to inflate a story from a tale to a global religion. The whole 'good way to live your lives' structure of christianity is a good one, which is why so many find it so compelling and will believe in it. Practically no one will believe in Scientology, for example, because we all understand that the principles are much more far fetched than christianity, islam or any other faith.

In the end, faith is a personal choice, whether you are indoctrinated from birth or not, you choose to continue using your faith's tennets or not. Organised religion is to me, a seriously flawed concept - the idea that everyone has to believe the same thing because they come from the same country or live with the same people. It is however, everyone's choice so I let them get on with it.

Me? I consider myself agnostic. Science comes close to explaining the world in which we live, I've studied physics and mathematics and there is a great deal of beauty involved which could point to a higher design. I tend to believe this is just a feeble human mind trying to comprehend something as big as the universe though. We're so small in comparison, the 'grand design' seems so beautiful and therefore, divine.

I'm not so sure.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

I know it's okay if I don't want to believe but it's not okay if you believe in something that cannot stand whatsoever without faith or misguided passion.

Try and prove that statement.

Almost anyone can create a belief system and turn it into a religion, but that does not make it correct or right or true. Faith can be placed in anything: a rock, a toy, a symbol, a book, etc., but confirmation (i.e., validity) of the object of faith does not resolve until a compelling and demonstrable reason is shown to as defense against the counterarguments.

Try and vilidate what you believe. Then i will consider having no faith in the Lord if you care about me and my well being.

You didn't answer the question, who do you want confirmation from?

 

[BANANAxBOY]

In duality there are many ways to create doubts about the actuality of history, science, religion, etc. We can only go on faith in this type of dualistic environment on subjects like God. When deductibility is applied and all duality is eliminated, there is only 1. You, like every other creature, are part of the one. This 'one', that each of us is a part of, is the creator. This tends to take a human form through our dualistic religions but GOD, the 'One' the Creator, 'that which was before time' is of the same form and function of energy for that is what this is. With this said, the energy that created all of this, and all of us, must follow the Law of Energy Conservation, essentially making it timeless and eternal much like what many call GOD. Following the Mass/Energy Equation, energy and mass are interchangeable, as mass can become energy and energy can become mass. This makes all of mass, the whole of energy. When viewed from this perspective it is easy to see that the creator is the simplest form of energy, pure light, and that energy, GOD, created all of creation. We learn that this creation came from the most dense bit of matter but that creation had to have come from the smallest vibration of energy before what science sees as the BigBang. Once this happened, energy becoming matter, creation ensued and dualistic separation eventually split MAN from GOD.

Thanks to Young's work in particle/wave function we know that experiments are bias to the consciousness of the viewer creating big questions around everything we have ever learned up to this point. Nothing is for sure and everything is possible. Consciousness is becoming more and more accepted as the single decision maker in anything and everything that happens.

Who is right? All are right. Who is God? I am God, just like you, because we are a part of that which created us GOD/Energy/Light. How can you ever be sure that all of this, what you see, what you believe is real, all that you can touch, all of history as you have learned it, every book, every bit of knowledge, all that you have ever experienced through ANY of your senses has only happened since you became "CONSCIOUS" of it. ALL of it exists only for you, only in your mind, each and every person, thing, place, time, it is all a mental flicker ONLY for you...You are the light, you are the energy, you are that which you see as God. Why not? It makes more sense than the bullshit science and religion are forcing into every opening in your senses input. When you approach life under the premiss that you MIGHT be God, you live a little bit better...you are a little bit kinder....you give a little bit deeper...you essentially start to realize that "treat your brother like yourself" brings a deeper more realistic perspective. You see all of creation as God, as it exists in YOU...If you are the creator, JUST IN CASE...Create Responsibly.

In love, why don't I have controll over my digestive system, circulatory system, nervouse system if I, you are God?

BxB

 

[German Stallion]

I am going to jump in here with some comments. First Christianity is not a FAITH based on only faith. It is FAITH based on fact. If the train is running the engine is FACT; the middle car is Faith and then Feelings. Feelings are the caboose; Faith is the engine..FACT. The Bible is not a book of faith it is a book of FACT. You can find the cities named, you can locate the places described. The people of the bible are historical people. History records the events of Bible teachings. There are ample evidence to prove anything the bible says. I weary of people who say the BIBLE is just another book. It is a FACTUAL; Accurate and trustworthy book. So, when I believe somthing it is not just on blind faith, it is based on facts. That is the whole of the arguement. I base my faith on fact...the fact of Jesus Christ, his birth, his life, his death and his resurrection. Hundreds of people have tried to disprove all this yet his claims are still valid and still true and truth. Truth can't be shoved aside. You can claim anything, but He, Christ was the fulfillment of Bible truth.

Josh McDowell tried to disprove the Resurrection and wrote a book about it called "Evidence that demands a verdict." Then he wrote another book called..."More Evidence that demands a verdict." When he started out searching and seeking for truth he found it.

Often we go about trying to prove something wrong or try to make it agree with our pre concieved ideas then and when we honestly search, we find that we were wrong.

The bible can stand every and any test you want to give it. I don't have to defend it, I just let it, like the "LION" it is, it can defend itself.

Go ahead, give it your best shot....try and destroy it, you lose, it will still be here and you will be dead and buried. Hundreds have tried, and died.

Having said that, each and every one of us has a right and the right to believe what you will. Many in religion do believe with only faith. I am not that way. In the Bible, Thomas was not either. He said, unless I see and touch, I will not beleive. So, Jesus showed himself to Thomas and Thomas did believe and I do believe that he touched, because he was that kind of a man...he wanted proof. Yes, Jesus said, Because you have seen and touch that is good, but blessed are those who believe with out seeing and touching. I don't think it wrong to question, I think that is good. I do think it wrong to believe something just because someone says it. I read hundreds of websites where they say this and that about the bible, never offering any proof, just making blanket statements that it is in error or that it is wrong or mis-translated.

If you study the scriptures, the Bible, you will find they are carefully and accurately copied and translated. That might not be true with some translations which are not translations but rather comentaries, but with most translations they have accuracy in their corner. You can always find fault with something, but if you are looking for truth, the Bible will give you truth. You might not like what you find, but it will be truthful. It is a book that tells both the good and the bad. It didn't and doesn't cover up David's sin with Uriah's wife, it tells you what he suffered and lost because of his sin. It is honest about the Hero's of the Bible and tells it like it is to us who read it. It gives hope for the future and help for the present. Give it and chance and it will change you life. Thanks for listening. GS

 

[BANANAxBOY]

Like GS said, GIVE IT A CHANCE. If you are willingly ignorant you will not find the truth. Most people are, please don't be one of those people!! I tell you this because I honestly care about all of you amazing, nice people here. The bible is fact, theories are not.

Love BxB

 

[MAXAMEYES]

A little wisdom from Maimonides:

<TABLE style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" border=1 cellSpacing=15 cellPadding=15 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>Now, we occupy a lowly position, both in space and rank in comparison with the heavenly sphere, and the Almighty is Most High not in space, but with respect to absolute existence, greatness and power.
Quotation of Maimonides </TD></TR><TR><TD>One should see the world, and see himself as a scale with an equal balance of good and evil. When he does one good deed the scale is tipped to the good - he and the world is saved. When he does one evil deed the scale is tipped to the bad - he and the world is destroyed.
Quotation of Maimonides </TD></TR><TR><TD>Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress.
Quotation of Maimonides </TD></TR><TR><TD>The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision.
Quotation of Maimonides </TD></TR><TR><TD>The same is the case with those opinions of man to which he has been accustomed from his youth; he likes them, defends them, and shuns the opposite views.
Quotation of Maimonides </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[tigerpushup]

Aliens made us...not some god with white hair and bear....if you dont believe there is proof.I just wanna say that whis modern world what is going is full of LIES.The real knowledge gonna set all of you free.People are so stupid because of this modern material world.People are not spirtual,many of them are just looking for material...
I dont wanna go any further,just i wanna advice all of you guys to watch ZEITGEIST movie(1 its about religion,911 myth and money....2 part is about positive side of future life which it can be if gonna build our minds and go to higher level of our mind).Here is DAVID ICKE, for me he is like president of world,like man who wanna help the people and world but he is to weak.Why because of power of freemasonry and political pigs which rule this world(C.I.A.,Bush familiy,Obama,all of them which are on leader seat)...

I agree with dld,all of us can have GOD in ourselves.GOD like some supernatural inteligence being does exist so high in universe,in some another dimension(i think 7th i am not sure),but i wouldnt call it a GOD,i will call it a KREATOR.

TRUTH IS AROUND US....

SALUTE

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Bong hits and keyboards....combo from Hell.

 

[Krispin]

Try and prove that statement.

So you require proof of some things but not of other things? Where's your faith now? Why put faith in water walkers and not put faith in common sense? The proof of my statement follows from basic experience: it's not okay that the religious establisHydromaxent of the Middle Ages stifled scientific models and pursuits that ran counter to prevailing doctrine because this prolonged primitive conditions of existence, capping human potential and allowing unnecessary death and conquest (Crusades, Inquisition); it's not okay that National Socialist party of antebellum Germany disseminated and indoctrinated millions into a false philosophy of murder and perversion because this resulted in a genocide that tore apart the globe, that was the fodder for the Cold War, the Israeli conflicts, and throngs of other conflicts and discords; it's not okay that continued belief in Intelligent Design or Creationism is often accompanied with a denigration of evolution and the scientific basis behind it because this detracts from social progression into greater understanding and control of our lives, prolonging unnecessary death, unnecessary disease (stem cell research), unnecessary violence between competing religions, etc.

The proof is in the fact that everything the human race has fought to accomplish in the last 500 years, everything technological or philosophical or directional, rests on the firm ground of confirmable and demonstrable science; everything from the computer your using, the monitor you're viewing, the keyboard you're typing on, has been developed in a practical fashion that is separate from the understood concept of faith. Belief in these things has born progress and real fruit to the human condition, while belief in water walkers has born comforting delusions and savage bloodshed. May God (if He or She or It does exist) have mercy on you for supporting such a disease.

Try and vilidate what you believe. Then i will consider having no faith in the Lord if you care about me and my well being.

You didn't answer the question, who do you want confirmation from?

I don't really care where confirmation comes from as long as confirmation presented is defensible. Water walking is not defensible (magic tricks aside) because it is not confirmable or demonstrable; that's why Christians are so big on "believing without seeing," so that followers don't feel like complete suckers going along with something that they have absolutely no confirmation of beyond someone else's word. I'm not saying that walking on water is impossible- I have no proof of that. What I am saying is that there is no proof to believe in the positive, i.e., believe that a water walker existed in the past beyond a written account that is not demonstrably provable or memorably confirmable.

 

[Krispin]

I am going to jump in here with some comments. First Christianity is not a FAITH based on only faith. It is FAITH based on fact. If the train is running the engine is FACT; the middle car is Faith and then Feelings. Feelings are the caboose; Faith is the engine..FACT. The Bible is not a book of faith it is a book of FACT. You can find the cities named, you can locate the places described. The people of the bible are historical people. History records the events of Bible teachings. There are ample evidence to prove anything the bible says. I weary of people who say the BIBLE is just another book. It is a FACTUAL; Accurate and trustworthy book. So, when I believe somthing it is not just on blind faith, it is based on facts. That is the whole of the arguement. I base my faith on fact...the fact of Jesus Christ, his birth, his life, his death and his resurrection. Hundreds of people have tried to disprove all this yet his claims are still valid and still true and truth. Truth can't be shoved aside. You can claim anything, but He, Christ was the fulfillment of Bible truth.

Josh McDowell tried to disprove the Resurrection and wrote a book about it called "Evidence that demands a verdict." Then he wrote another book called..."More Evidence that demands a verdict." When he started out searching and seeking for truth he found it.

Often we go about trying to prove something wrong or try to make it agree with our pre concieved ideas then and when we honestly search, we find that we were wrong.

The bible can stand every and any test you want to give it. I don't have to defend it, I just let it, like the "LION" it is, it can defend itself.

Go ahead, give it your best shot....try and destroy it, you lose, it will still be here and you will be dead and buried. Hundreds have tried, and died.

Having said that, each and every one of us has a right and the right to believe what you will. Many in religion do believe with only faith. I am not that way. In the Bible, Thomas was not either. He said, unless I see and touch, I will not beleive. So, Jesus showed himself to Thomas and Thomas did believe and I do believe that he touched, because he was that kind of a man...he wanted proof. Yes, Jesus said, Because you have seen and touch that is good, but blessed are those who believe with out seeing and touching. I don't think it wrong to question, I think that is good. I do think it wrong to believe something just because someone says it. I read hundreds of websites where they say this and that about the bible, never offering any proof, just making blanket statements that it is in error or that it is wrong or mis-translated.

If you study the scriptures, the Bible, you will find they are carefully and accurately copied and translated. That might not be true with some translations which are not translations but rather comentaries, but with most translations they have accuracy in their corner. You can always find fault with something, but if you are looking for truth, the Bible will give you truth. You might not like what you find, but it will be truthful. It is a book that tells both the good and the bad. It didn't and doesn't cover up David's sin with Uriah's wife, it tells you what he suffered and lost because of his sin. It is honest about the Hero's of the Bible and tells it like it is to us who read it. It gives hope for the future and help for the present. Give it and chance and it will change you life. Thanks for listening. GS

Just because the Bible mentions actual cities or historical people does not mean that it is fact; have you ever read historical novels? They also mention actual cities and individuals from history but they are fictional, not factual.

Where has the resurrection been proven? In the Bible? That's a circular argument (you're using the Bible to prove the Bible). Where has water walking been proven? Where has ascent skyward been proven? Where has water-to-wine been proven (parlor tricks aside)?

I'll tell you where: nowhere. The Bible is not terribly more confirmable as fact in its central tenets than are pink elephants or floating kangaroos. If it was, then it would be accepted history, not accepted religion.

 

[Krispin]

Like GS said, GIVE IT A CHANCE. If you are willingly ignorant you will not find the truth. Most people are, please don't be one of those people!! I tell you this because I honestly care about all of you amazing, nice people here. The bible is fact, theories are not.

Love BxB

The Bible has been given a chance for over 2000 years, more than a fair allotment. The problem is that it is no more demonstrable as true in its core components than is Scientology or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism, etc. Stop deluding yourself with ideas of pity for the nonbeliever or self-pity in the face of opposition to your beliefs; these are closer to delusional defense mechanisms of security rather than rational martyrdom or rational perseverance. The stories about the nonbelievers in the Bible that laughed at Noah and mocked Christ are effectively designed to overcome the feeling of being a sucker in believing something without sound ground. Wake up or persist in a coma of self-delusion.

 

[German Stallion]

The Bible has been given a chance for over 2000 years, more than a fair allotment. The problem is that it is no more demonstrable as true in its core components than is Scientology or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism, etc. Stop deluding yourself with ideas of pity for the nonbeliever or self-pity in the face of opposition to your beliefs; these are closer to delusional defense mechanisms of security rather than rational martyrdom or rational perseverance. The stories about the nonbelievers in the Bible that laughed at Noah and mocked Christ are effectively designed to overcome the feeling of being a sucker in believing something without sound ground. Wake up or persist in a coma of self-delusion.

Krispin...there you go again, making statements that you don't support..."The problem is that it is no more demonstrable as true in its core components than is Scientology or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism, etc." Go ahead and tell us some of those un-demonstrable core components that you are referring to. I would like to hear them. I have not yet found any. But, since you seem to be very versed in this ability to destroy the bible, I would like to hear from you. Really, I am not being sarcastic or unreasonable, just want to hear what you are talking about. Go slow, give us one item at a time. GS

 

[Krispin]

Krispin...there you go again, making statements that you don't support..."The problem is that it is no more demonstrable as true in its core components than is Scientology or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Shintoism, etc." Go ahead and tell us some of those un-demonstrable core components that you are referring to. I would like to hear them. I have not yet found any. But, since you seem to be very versed in this ability to destroy the bible, I would like to hear from you. Really, I am not being sarcastic or unreasonable, just want to hear what you are talking about. Go slow, give us one item at a time. GS

All right, I have no problem doing that. Here is a list of core Biblical components that have no proof beyond the written word and have not been demonstrated as possible:


1.)Walking on water (no Criss Angel stuff- I mean walking on water without physical tricks);

2.)Resurrection;

3.)Turning water into wine (once again, physical magic does not qualify unless you want to compare Christ to Criss Angel);

4.)Producing multitudes of bread loves and seafood from a limited quantity;

5.)Controlled ascent into the sky without any physical support mechanism (not Criss Angel style either, unless you want to admit that Criss Angel has the same abilities as Christ supposedly does);

6.)Raising people from the dead;


Prove any one of those and I will bow before you. But if you can't, then please hold your arrogance and ignorance in check before the fact that you believe in a delusion that is no more demonstrable as true than a child's fantasy world. Lastly, my statements have all been supported; I've explained to you how the Bible's core components are no more convincing than the core components of the world's remaining major religions. That is why fact is based on science and proof and confirmation and demonstrability and why religion and fantasy and astrology and things of that sort are separated: it's because they have not been proven, they have not been confirmed and they have not been demonstrated. Wake up from your delusion and smell the chemistry.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

So you require proof of some things but not of other things? Where's your faith now? Why put faith in water walkers and not put faith in common sense?

I feel the same way, I am not trusting anything that hasn't been proven to me.

The proof of my statement follows from basic experience: it's not okay that the religious establisHydromaxent of the Middle Ages stifled scientific models and pursuits that ran counter to prevailing doctrine because this prolonged primitive conditions of existence, capping human potential and allowing unnecessary death and conquest (Crusades, Inquisition)

1. What I am backing up is not a religion.
2. That is a sad story, that the "religious" crushed the scientists studies.
3. This irrelevant statement does not prove that the scientists models were correct or that thier studies were to prove anything.

; it's not okay that National Socialist party of antebellum Germany disseminated and indoctrinated millions into a false philosophy of murder and perversion because this resulted in a genocide that tore apart the globe, that was the fodder for the Cold War, the Israeli conflicts, and throngs of other conflicts and discords

1. Tearing apart the Globe is a bad thing
2. This National Socialist party sounds terrible, they must be bad people.

; it's not okay that continued belief in Intelligent Design or Creationism is often accompanied with a denigration of evolution and the scientific basis behind it because this detracts from social progression into greater understanding and control of our lives, prolonging unnecessary death, unnecessary disease (stem cell research), unnecessary violence between competing religions, etc.

1.The reason that evolution is denigrated by Creationism is because they are two completely different ideas. Creationism, the idea that this world was created by someone, is in complete conflict with evolution (a theory) and it is perfectly ok to denigrate the idea of evolution when it can not be scientifically proven to be true which goes the same with the above statement, you are not proving anything either. All you ar telling me is that evolution is denigrated.

2. That is too bad that evolution was and is criticized.

3. Death and violence are bad things too!

The proof is in the fact that everything the human race has fought to accomplish in the last 500 years, everything technological or philosophical or directional, rests on the firm ground of confirmable and demonstrable science

1. The human race is incredible. Who made something so incredible?

; everything from the computer your using, the monitor you're viewing, the keyboard you're typing on, has been developed in a practical fashion that is separate from the understood concept of faith.

1. These wonderful things were built by human hands.
2. Where did the intelligence come from? The guy before the guy?

Belief in these things has born progress and real fruit to the human condition

,

1. So you believe in computers and keyboards, I do too.
2. If these keyboards bring real fruit to us in life like love and compassion, then what fruit will it bring when you die? My God will provide fruit all through my life, and when I die!

while belief in water walkers has born comforting delusions and savage bloodshed.

You couldn't have said it better assuming "water walkers" is reffering to some religion!

May God (if He or She or It does exist) have mercy on you for supporting such a disease.

I pray He does as well.

I don't really care where confirmation comes from as long as confirmation presented is defensible. Water walking is not defensible (magic tricks aside) because it is not confirmable or demonstrable; that's why Christians are so big on "believing without seeing," so that followers don't feel like complete suckers going along with something that they have absolutely no confirmation of beyond someone else's word. I'm not saying that walking on water is impossible- I have no proof of that. What I am saying is that there is no proof to believe in the positive, i.e., believe that a water walker existed in the past beyond a written account that is not demonstrably provable or memorably confirmable.

Allow the confirmation to come from me then. Since I have clearly proven above that your hardly rellevent statements have not proven a thing and go on about saying that "it's not ok", I will go on to tell you truth.

Jesus Christ created you and me for the purpose of having a relationship between us. Our God is a good God and has givin us life, hearts, and hands. Everything comes from God, everything lives by His power, everything declares His glory, and everything exists for His purpose. He didn't need to create us, but He chose to create us for His own pure enjoyment. God is a loving Father and we were created to be His children. Parents choose to have children don't they? It's the same with Jesus!

This is what the bible tells us. This book matches with everything today, yesterday and 3000 years ago. All from humans and animals being placed on the earth to our current actions today.

It is not possible to prove this statement wrong and that is because it is truth, and there is more where that came from in the WORD of the LORD, the bible.

Love BxB

 

[Krispin]

I feel the same way, I am not trusting anything that hasn't been proven to me.

Then you have no business of believing in Christianity. I'm going to dissect your defense, one point at a time, and hopefully you'll come to the realization that you have no proof or even clear, sound reason to defend your superstitions.

1. What I am backing up is not a religion.

Basic definition of religion from dictionary.com:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

That describes Christianity to a T, as well as every other belief system that is usually classified as 'religion.' You've already embarrassed yourself by classifying Christianity as a non-religion when it clearly qualifies based on the standard definition.

2. That is a sad story, that the "religious" crushed the scientists studies.

What the devil are you talking about? Sad story? Crushed scientific studies? You're making inane statements that possibly betray a deep-seated psychosis: a delusion of grand proportions. Who cares if the story is sad- that's not the question here. The question is whether or not belief is justified and whether or not it is true or can be reasonably assumed to be true.

3. This irrelevant statement does not prove that the scientists models were correct or that thier studies were to prove anything.

Scientific models have been confirmed again and again and again, as opposed to religious tenets that have never been confirmed and are constantly in flux due to a mix of interpretations and denominations. Also, the question is not necessarily only that of "is it proven" but also "is it reasonable to believe it given the evidence that exists." Science has trumped religion at every corner and continues to do so. So far you have not proven anything about religion except the necessary delusional inclinations it produces in followers.

1. Tearing apart the Globe is a bad thing

The Catholic Church has been responsible for countless savage acts, indirectly and directly, commencing from the early Crusades and culminating in the torturous practices of the Inquisition. Because of the Church, scientific progress was slowed, its vigor suppressed, and its adherents ostracized, discredited, imprisoned, or murdered.

2. This National Socialist party sounds terrible, they must be bad people.

The National Socialist party is the party of the Nazis; the word Nazi is itself a sort of acronym for National Socialist. I don't understand how you could not have known this.

1.The reason that evolution is denigrated by Creationism is because they are two completely different ideas. Creationism, the idea that this world was created by someone, is in complete conflict with evolution (a theory) and it is perfectly ok to denigrate the idea of evolution when it can not be scientifically proven to be true which goes the same with the above statement, you are not proving anything either. All you ar telling me is that evolution is denigrated.

Evolution has been reasonably confirmed to such a degree that belief in it has become fully justifiable; to denigrate a theory or idea that has volumes of support behind it primarily because it conflicts with Biblical accounts (or as the repackaged Creationism "Intelligent Design") is fully unreasonable and evident of a cancerous bias against anything even remotely at odds with these convictions. Evolution has more support for it than Intelligent Design does; therefore, if any one of them is to be believed, it would reasonably be Evolution.

2. That is too bad that evolution was and is criticized.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that evolution is criticized if that criticism is legitimate. But to criticize it because it contradicts preexisting universal notions is nothing more but pernicious subjectivity.

3. Death and violence are bad things too!

What the devil are you talking about again? How does this even promote your argument? I know death and violence are 'bad things' (in most cases) and I was employing them to demonstrate the darker side of belief in Christianity.

1. The human race is incredible. Who made something so incredible?

We may be incredible to ourselves, but the question of our origins is something more complicated. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, that results in the development of new species. So to answer your question, we were made by chemical/corporal process that is inherent to the physical laws of the universe, a an age-long process that is commonly referred to as evolution today.

1. These wonderful things were built by human hands.

Okay. How does this help your argument?

2. Where did the intelligence come from? The guy before the guy?

Intelligence came from the gradual process of ability accumulation that follows from the evolutionary model; from simple proteins came the first self-replicating molecule that eventually led to the first single-celled organisms that was followed by more complex lifeforms; with each successive mutation or variance in recombination, the abilities of the life form were expanded and new cerebral functions (or the equivalent of) developed from the use of these abilities. Fast forward several hundred millions of years, and the process has yielded the most intellectually gifted life form on the planet yet: humans.

1. So you believe in computers and keyboards, I do too.
2. If these keyboards bring real fruit to us in life like love and compassion, then what fruit will it bring when you die? My God will provide fruit all through my life, and when I die!

Your God is a delusion that crushes you flat; it is no more a reality than the reality experienced by a cocaine addict while intoxicated, except yours is a 24/7 mental whitewashing. The question is not whether keyboards and computers will "bring fruit when" I die (you sound mentally handicapped when you say that, fyi) but whether a belief in God or Christianity or any other religion is reasonable. The only benefit of your belief may be that it provides you with enough comfort so that you do not have to accept the brutality of this world. But recognize that there is no proof or even reason to believe in any of your opinions. Rotting 6 feet under is more reasonable of a belief than flying off to Heaven upon death.

You couldn't have said it better assuming "water walkers" is reffering to some religion!

I was referring to your Christ when I said water walkers.

I pray He does as well.

More random statements that do not carry your argument.

Allow the confirmation to come from me then. Since I have clearly proven above that your hardly rellevent statements have not proven a thing and go on about saying that "it's not ok", I will go on to tell you truth.

I have shown that is clearly more reasonable to believe in evolution that it is to believe in the Bible or to believe in Intelligent Design. Your arguments have been crushed and your religion has crumbled. I hope your delusions are strong enough to keep you from this reality because if not, I do fear you may suffer a mental breakdown knowing that your entire philosophy is predicated on nonsense.

Jesus Christ created you and me for the purpose of having a relationship between us. Our God is a good God and has givin us life, hearts, and hands. Everything comes from God, everything lives by His power, everything declares His glory, and everything exists for His purpose. He didn't need to create us, but He chose to create us for His own pure enjoyment. God is a loving Father and we were created to be His children. Parents choose to have children don't they? It's the same with Jesus!

You have to learn logic. The statement above is precisely what you are intending to prove, so simply repeating it does not progress your argument further towards that proof. Parents have children, sure. How does that prove that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and was resurrected? Honestly, take logic 101 asap.

This is what the bible tells us. This book matches with everything today, yesterday and 3000 years ago. All from humans and animals being placed on the earth to our current actions today.

The Bible matches almost nothing of the today; science has essentially destroyed the Genesis account. I realize now you have a mental disorder that prevents anyone from reasoning with you. I am sorry for you.

It is not possible to prove this statement wrong and that is because it is truth, and there is more where that came from in the WORD of the LORD, the bible.

You have not proven anything. On the contrary, my argument stands that it is unreasonable to believe in the Bible or Christianity in general. Wake up now. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.

 

[German Stallion]

I realize that this is a great and long discussion between Krispin and BxB but I can't sit and let these things go by without speaking out. I am going to quote some of the things that you say Krispin. They are the ones that need answering and answered with truth not rambling like you are doing.


Krispen Wrote: The Bible matches almost nothing of the today; science has essentially destroyed the Genesis account. I realize now you have a mental disorder that prevents anyone from reasoning with you. I am sorry for you.
Krispin, throwing rocks of slader to BxB shows your lack of knowledge. People who attack the character or in this case the mental ability of BxB shows your own insecurity. Obviously you just read what you want without reading anything from the “other side.” The bible is relevant to all things. Science has not destroyed the Genesis account. More and more evidence is showing there is Biblical evidence to line with proper science. The Bible spoke of atoms long before we ever discovered the atom. The Bible speaks of things being held together…Science will tell you of electrons, protons and neutrons being held together. The Bible speaks of this long before man knew it. Taking a disparaging attitude toward either side gets nowhere.

Krispin Wrote: Evolution has been reasonably confirmed to such a degree that belief in it has become fully justifiable; to denigrate a theory or idea that has volumes of support behind it primarily because it conflicts with Biblical accounts (or as the repackaged Creationism "Intelligent Design") is fully unreasonable and evident of a cancerous bias against anything even remotely at odds with these convictions. Evolution has more support for it than Intelligent Design does; therefore, if any one of them is to be believed, it would reasonably be Evolution.
Wrong again, Krispin. More and more scientists are questioning evolution and the theory and that is all it is, a theory. If you could and would and they would come up with the
Krispin wrote: The Catholic Church has been responsible for countless savage acts, indirectly and directly, commencing from the early Crusades and culminating in the torturous practices of the Inquisition. Because of the Church, scientific progress was slowed, its vigor suppressed, and its adherents ostracized, discredited, imprisoned, or murdered.
Krispin, you are right. I have never considered the Catholic church to be anything but religion pure and simple. For your information there is a big difference between “Christianity and Religion.” No, I don’t consider the Catholic church a good representative of Bible Christianity.
Krispin wrote: Intelligence came from the gradual process of ability accumulation that follows from the evolutionary model; from simple proteins came the first self-replicating molecule that eventually led to the first single-celled organisms that was followed by more complex lifeforms; with each successive mutation or variance in recombination, the abilities of the life form were expanded and new cerebral functions (or the equivalent of) developed from the use of these abilities. Fast forward several hundred millions of years, and the process has yielded the most intellectually gifted life form on the planet yet: humans.
Now that is a very interesting thing: So show me some of the intermediate lifeforms that must be around if we have several HUNDRED Million years. Simple things like where are the Transitional Fossils. Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. How many years later???? and there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. The earth tells the truth.

You keep throwing out these big numbers of hundreds of millions of years. It is now proven that the sun is losing energy.... It is losing a certain number of feet per hour in surface material. If you extrapolate back several tens of thousands of years, this means that the sun would have been appreciably larger, which means that the earth would have been scorched...Thus eliminating the possibility of life evolving on the earth millions of years ago and necessitating an orchestrated short term recent creation. It also means that the gravitational pull of the sun upon the earth would have caused the earth to catapult into the sun. This again proves that you really don't have a lot of time to deal with. There are hundreds and thousands of things that can prove and do prove the earth is young, not old.
It would appear to me Krispin that you are very defensive about this issue of the Bible and God; creation and evolution. It might be that you don’t want to believe in God because if you did and were convinced the Bible was true and God was real you would have to be accountable to what you learn to be truth. I personally doubt if you will be convinced of anything I write or anyone else writes, but I do challenge you to study and read and learn both sides. I have studied under some of the best and noted of the evolutionists and while I would respect them, I disagree with them and I am also learning that more and more staunch evolutionists are examining the Bible and creation. Thanks for listening. GS

 

[Krispin]

I realize that this is a great and long discussion between Krispin and BxB but I can't sit and let these things go by without speaking out. I am going to quote some of the things that you say Krispin. They are the ones that need answering and answered with truth not rambling like you are doing.


Krispen Wrote: The Bible matches almost nothing of the today; science has essentially destroyed the Genesis account. I realize now you have a mental disorder that prevents anyone from reasoning with you. I am sorry for you.
Krispin, throwing rocks of slader to BxB shows your lack of knowledge. People who attack the character or in this case the mental ability of BxB shows your own insecurity. Obviously you just read what you want without reading anything from the &#8220;other side.&#8221; The bible is relevant to all things. Science has not destroyed the Genesis account. More and more evidence is showing there is Biblical evidence to line with proper science. The Bible spoke of atoms long before we ever discovered the atom. The Bible speaks of things being held together&#8230;Science will tell you of electrons, protons and neutrons being held together. The Bible speaks of this long before man knew it. Taking a disparaging attitude toward either side gets nowhere.

Relax Stallion, I have no insecurity. If I see mental illness, I point it out. My arguments are sound and they have exposed the shaky foundations of your belief. Evolution contradicts Genesis; the age of the Earth contradicts Genesis; shall I continue or do you want to resolve these two problems for me so I can &#8220;see it your way&#8221;?

Krispin Wrote: Evolution has been reasonably confirmed to such a degree that belief in it has become fully justifiable; to denigrate a theory or idea that has volumes of support behind it primarily because it conflicts with Biblical accounts (or as the repackaged Creationism "Intelligent Design") is fully unreasonable and evident of a cancerous bias against anything even remotely at odds with these convictions. Evolution has more support for it than Intelligent Design does; therefore, if any one of them is to be believed, it would reasonably be Evolution.
Wrong again, Krispin. More and more scientists are questioning evolution and the theory and that is all it is, a theory. If you could and would and they would come up with the

Actually, you're wrong. My argument stands because you did not introduce anything relevant in your counterargument. Regardless of scientists questioning evolution, it still has more support behind it than Intelligent Design does, therefore if any one of the two is to be believed, it would have to be evolution. Learn to argue before you start taking on your superiors.

Krispin wrote: The Catholic Church has been responsible for countless savage acts, indirectly and directly, commencing from the early Crusades and culminating in the torturous practices of the Inquisition. Because of the Church, scientific progress was slowed, its vigor suppressed, and its adherents ostracized, discredited, imprisoned, or murdered.
Krispin, you are right. I have never considered the Catholic church to be anything but religion pure and simple. For your information there is a big difference between &#8220;Christianity and Religion.&#8221; No, I don&#8217;t consider the Catholic church a good representative of Bible Christianity.

Christianity is religion. Go to dictionary.com and look up religion. The definition matches Christianity to a T.

Krispin wrote: Intelligence came from the gradual process of ability accumulation that follows from the evolutionary model; from simple proteins came the first self-replicating molecule that eventually led to the first single-celled organisms that was followed by more complex lifeforms; with each successive mutation or variance in recombination, the abilities of the life form were expanded and new cerebral functions (or the equivalent of) developed from the use of these abilities. Fast forward several hundred millions of years, and the process has yielded the most intellectually gifted life form on the planet yet: humans.

Now that is a very interesting thing: So show me some of the intermediate lifeforms that must be around if we have several HUNDRED Million years. Simple things like where are the Transitional Fossils. Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. How many years later???? and there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. The earth tells the truth.

Here's a list of transitional fossils (only a partial list) on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Before you open your mouth that there are no transitional fossils, how about actually knowing what you're talking about? Your argument is so pathetic I am honestly feeling pity for you because you are just getting destroyed.

You keep throwing out these big numbers of hundreds of millions of years. It is now proven that the sun is losing energy.... It is losing a certain number of feet per hour in surface material. If you extrapolate back several tens of thousands of years, this means that the sun would have been appreciably larger, which means that the earth would have been scorched...Thus eliminating the possibility of life evolving on the earth millions of years ago and necessitating an orchestrated short term recent creation.

You misunderstand and misinterpret reports on the sun's energy output; any learned astronomer or physicist would be appalled at the false information you've presented. The sun is losing energy but that does not mean life on Earth in the past was impossible- the fossil record proves it was possible. Even if the sun was significantly bigger in the past, the Earth has not had life on it for its entire history. In fact, it's only recently in Earth's history (but still millions of years) that life emerged. Get an education and stop talking nonsense. Your beliefs are crumbling before you and you have NO DEFENSE- quit believing garbage and wake up.

It also means that the gravitational pull of the sun upon the earth would have caused the earth to catapult into the sun. This again proves that you really don't have a lot of time to deal with. There are hundreds and thousands of things that can prove and do prove the earth is young, not old.

The evidence in support of the Earth's old age is more than the evidence in support of a young Earth, therefore it is reasonable to believe in the former, not the latter idea. Once again your belief has been shown to be delusional and unreasonable. You have no defense as to why you believe in something that has a competing theory that is more complete and better supported by the evidence.

It would appear to me Krispin that you are very defensive about this issue of the Bible and God; creation and evolution. It might be that you don&#8217;t want to believe in God because if you did and were convinced the Bible was true and God was real you would have to be accountable to what you learn to be truth. I personally doubt if you will be convinced of anything I write or anyone else writes, but I do challenge you to study and read and learn both sides. I have studied under some of the best and noted of the evolutionists and while I would respect them, I disagree with them and I am also learning that more and more staunch evolutionists are examining the Bible and creation. Thanks for listening. GS

This isn't about me being defensive or "afraid to believe in God"- it's about having the sense to see that belief in Christianity is unfounded and LESS supported than the competing explanation. The other side's argument is stronger and better supported by the evidence yet you still believe in nonsense. Stop being stubborn and wake up.




Also, you asked me very clearly to list to you the things in the Bible that are "indemonstrable core components" and I listed 6 things in a recent post. It seems that you are avoiding this post because you have no proof of anything I've listed. For your convenience, here's that list again (it's obvious to see the level of insanity Christians must have to day in and day out believe this drivel):

1.)Walking on water (no Criss Angel stuff- I mean walking on water without physical tricks);

2.)Resurrection;

3.)Turning water into wine (once again, physical magic does not qualify unless you want to compare Christ to Criss Angel);

4.)Producing multitudes of bread loves and seafood from a limited quantity;

5.)Controlled ascent into the sky without any physical support mechanism (not Criss Angel style either, unless you want to admit that Criss Angel has the same abilities as Christ supposedly does);

6.)Raising people from the dead;


Good luck with proving that...


-Krispin

 

[German Stallion]

Yo, I do object to your making fun and treating me or anyone else with ridicule. It is okay, just doesn't show much character on your part. I will consider the source.

Because you say something doens't make it so. I disagree with some of the conclusions you make.

Here is the last comment:
Also, you asked me very clearly to list to you the things in the Bible that are "indemonstrable core components" and I listed 6 things in a recent post. It seems that you are avoiding this post because you have no proof of anything I've listed. For your convenience, here's that list again (it's obvious to see the level of insanity Christians must have to day in and day out believe this drivel):

1.)Walking on water (no Criss Angel stuff- I mean walking on water without physical tricks);

2.)Resurrection;

3.)Turning water into wine (once again, physical magic does not qualify unless you want to compare Christ to Criss Angel);

4.)Producing multitudes of bread loves and seafood from a limited quantity;

5.)Controlled ascent into the sky without any physical support mechanism (not Criss Angel style either, unless you want to admit that Criss Angel has the same abilities as Christ supposedly does);

6.)Raising people from the dead;

Since that wasn't my part of the thread, I didn't answer it. First, I don't consider the things you listed as core componants. I Do consider the resurrection vital and can suBathmateit much proof for that but you would not accept it so why bother.

I have listed a couple books that speak of this, but you would not read them either.

YOU are asking to prove the results of Christ's life and work on earth VS Christ himself. If he was a man, just a man, then that would not matter, but he was not. He was what he claimed and you can't disprove it, probably any more than I can prove it. 2000 years have passed and he is still around and worshiped and loved. So is the Bible and you can do all you wish to distroy it but it will be here when you and I both are gone. Really I think it is grand that you believe what you do. Keep at it. You will find out one day you are wrong but it will be too late. When you want help, contact some of us who still believe the Bible and have faith in Christ. GS